|
-a
<br />1
<br />rn
<br />0
<br />2
<br />0
<br />0
<br />a
<br />a
<br />to
<br />E
<br />L
<br />a
<br />0
<br />V
<br />m
<br />0
<br />CO
<br />■
<br />■
<br />■
<br />■
<br />The Boulder County zoning regulations reflect the fact that for
<br />most areas of the unincorporated County, basic infrastructure
<br />facilities are not available. The zoning code allows multifami-
<br />ly uses in two zones. Any proposed development would need
<br />to be located on a subdivided parcel within a community service
<br />area. The multifamily and transitional zones allow multifami-
<br />ly dwellings as a use by right subject to a subdivision review
<br />process. There are some parcels in the county that do have
<br />access to special district utilities and could support multifam-
<br />ily housing.
<br />Conclusion: The zoning and land use classifications used in
<br />the communities reviewed, present some constraints for those
<br />who would try to develop new PSH units in the communities.
<br />In most cases, the limitations on the placement of multifamily
<br />properties, coupled with scarcity of land ready for this type of
<br />development will continue to make it challenging to find fea-
<br />sible sites in most communities. It is difficult to determine how
<br />great the shortfall, because communities do not maintain an
<br />inventory of suitable parcels that are ready for development for
<br />this type of housing. Expanding residential uses in some com-
<br />mercial districts could present new opportunities for conversion
<br />of existing commercial buildings such as offices and hotels in
<br />to long term residential uses.
<br />(b) Density, building height limitations
<br />The historical land use pattern in Boulder County has been
<br />lower density development. The City of Boulder and the City
<br />of Longmont have provisions in their zoning codes that allow
<br />for higher density development and those communities do have
<br />provisions for waivers and density bonuses in certain situations.
<br />Generally, medium density development is encouraged in the
<br />multifamily zones. Medium density categories generally don't
<br />exceed 14 units per acre. Mixed use areas which permit a
<br />combination of commercial and residential uses allows in some
<br />locations up to 18 units per acre. The are other zones including
<br />Boulder Downtown zoning district allows for higher densities
<br />up to 27 units per acre, subject to review. The City of Boulder
<br />also allows an affordable housing density bonus in the RMX2
<br />district that ranges from 5 to 10 units per acre depending on
<br />the size of the parcel under consideration. However, this zoning
<br />classification has little relevance in addressing current needs
<br />because most of that land has been redeveloped as part of the
<br />Holiday Drive In Theater redevelopment.
<br />Longmont also allows greater densities up to 25 units per acre
<br />or less in the mixed use district(MU). The eastern communities
<br />of Lafayette and Louisville also place limits at the medium
<br />density range for multifamily projects. Superior also permits a
<br />medium density for multifamily with the possibility of greater
<br />density in some Planned Community areas.
<br />Generally, communities under review for this report place a
<br />limit on building height at 35' or three stories in the structure.
<br />The City of Boulder allows for a taller building height in some
<br />situations, subject to review. This height limit (35') is consistent
<br />with the densities allowed in the multifamily zones. Depend-
<br />ing on the internal configuration of the units, three stories above
<br />the finished grade should accommodate densities proscribed in
<br />the various multifamily zoning districts.
<br />Conclusion: Building height limits work with the densities
<br />allowed for multifamily developments. The City of Boulder is
<br />grappling with intense growth pressures that may require an
<br />expansion of the current height limits if there is going to be
<br />the possibility of accommodating more residents who work and
<br />want to live in the City of Boulder. There have been proposals
<br />to increase density in some zoning districts in the City of
<br />Boulder but those proposals have not been approved by the
<br />Planning Board at this time. As land and other costs of devel-
<br />opment continue to increase, the densities presently allowed
<br />for multifamily housing make it more challenging for affordable
<br />developers to create development budgets that will produce
<br />adequate cash flow without greater and greater equity and
<br />operating subsidies.
<br />(c) Mixed use zoning
<br />Mixed use zoning classifications provide opportunities for af-
<br />fordable housing development including PSH, that are often
<br />not available under other zoning code classifications. The mix
<br />of commercial and residential uses, usually allows for some of
<br />the greater opportunities for denser development in a commu-
<br />nity All of the communities surveyed, except Lyons, have mixed
<br />use categories that allow the combination of multifamily resi-
<br />dential with commercial uses. Because there is generally greater
<br />human activity and traffic activity in commercial areas, greater
<br />densities of dwellings don't impact other residential uses. In
<br />all the communities with mixed use zones, redevelopment is
<br />also encouraged which in a market of limited greenfield parcels,
<br />provides multifamily opportunity that wouldn't exist otherwise.
<br />Both Boulder and Longmont offer various development incen-
<br />tives for inclusion of affordable multifamily housing in mixed
<br />use zones.
<br />Conclusion: Mixed use zoning classifications offer development
<br />opportunities in Boulder County communities which are con-
<br />strained by limited amounts of greenfield land available for new
<br />development. Within the City of Boulder, the Inclusionary
<br />Housing Ordinance does provide impetus for developers of
<br />mixed use developments to include affordable units in their
<br />developments. The other communities may be able to increase
<br />the stock of affordable units and or PSH units by requiring that
<br />some units in mixed use developments meet targeted afford-
<br />ability requirements.
<br />(d) Diverse housing types
<br />All the communities in their comprehensive plans, provide some
<br />support for a diverse supply of housing types. The types enu-
<br />merated usually include large and small single family homes,
<br />manufactured homes in parks and on permanent foundations,
<br />multifamily residences ranging from two units up to many units,
<br />group care homes and elderly housing including assisted living
<br />and nursing homes. Boulder, Longmont and Lafayette expand
<br />that list to include accessory dwelling units with varying pro-
<br />cedures for accommodating those types of dwellings. Boulder
<br />also includes coop housing as another housing type that is
<br />permitted in the city. None of the communities surveyed for
<br />this report, presently have guidelines or regulations in place to
<br />address the growing trend of incorporating tiny houses or micro
<br />dwellings (both apartment and homes) into their land use
<br />regulations. The acceptance of micro units in the rental inven-
<br />tory is not a radical variation on historic use patterns. The Single
<br />Room Occupancy Hotel or Residence has long been used as a
<br />way of providing basic, livable rental units to a population that
<br />often could not afford larger units with more amenities.
<br />Conclusion: A regulatory structure which encourages housing
<br />diversity is an important tool for expanding the supply of af-
<br />fordable housing. While affordable housing per se, is not the
<br />focus of this report, Permanent Supportive Housing is a type
<br />of affordable housing and if a community makes greater op-
<br />portunities available for affordable housing, those expanded
<br />possibilities also offer greater opportunity for the inclusion of
<br />PSH either in affordable developments or as stand-alone facil-
<br />ities. Any expansion of housing that provides more, lower-priced,
<br />alternatives expands housing choice in the community.
<br />(e) Development Incentives for affordable housing
<br />Incentives are provided to developers so that they may lower
<br />the total development costs of the planned housing. As a result
<br />of lowering those development costs, the rent or sale price of
<br />the affordable product can be reduced to reflect those savings
<br />or cost reductions. Development incentives are classified as
<br />being either cash incentives or non-cash incentives. For example,
<br />if a community has a policy in place to provide either local or
<br />federal funds as development subsidies for affordable units, that
<br />grant or donation would be considered a cash incentive. Local
<br />governments also have a number of tools at their disposal that
<br />don't actually entail the transfer of cash to a developer. By al-
<br />lowing regulatory concessions and waivers, the total development
<br />cost of a project may be lowered without a cash outlay from the
<br />government agency. The menu of incentives varies among
<br />Boulder County communities. Boulder and Longmont both
<br />have more formalized policies that provide both cash and non-
<br />cash incentives for affordable housing development. Lafayette
<br />and Louisville have less formalized policies and handle most
<br />affordable housing support on an ad hoc basis. Identifiable cash
<br />and non-cash incentives are listed for each community.
<br />Municipality
<br />Cash
<br />Non -Cash
<br />Boulder
<br />HOME, CDBG, Affordable Housing Fund,
<br />Community Housing Assistance Program,
<br />Commercial Linkage Fees as yet not
<br />earmarked
<br />Density bonuses in select zones, exemptions for
<br />building permits waiver of Growth Management
<br />Allocation requirements. Waiver of Housing
<br />Excise Tax, for higher percentages of AH, waiver
<br />of other excise taxes.
<br />Lafayette
<br />No established cash incentives, may
<br />consider fee waivers and other financial
<br />assistance on a case by case basis
<br />Possible waiver of some development
<br />requirements considered on a case by case basis,
<br />exemption for building permits under growth
<br />management policy
<br />Longmont
<br />HOME, CDBG, Affordable Housing Fund,
<br />bond refinancing fund
<br />Fee waivers and offsets funds paid on behalf of
<br />developers. Modifications, variances of
<br />development standards, lot and set back
<br />minimums, density limits, for affordable projects
<br />that meet city affordability policies, fast tracking
<br />of affordable development review applications
<br />Louisville
<br />No established cash incentives, may
<br />consider fee waivers and other financial
<br />assistance on a case by case basis
<br />Possible waiver of some development
<br />requirements in certain zone districts considered
<br />on a case by case basis
<br />Lyons
<br />No established cash incentives, may
<br />consider on a case by case basis
<br />May consider donation of land or waiver of
<br />development standards on high priority proposals
<br />Superior
<br />No established cash incentives, a general
<br />policy against fee waivers
<br />No established policy or practice on approving
<br />waivers to development standards, some
<br />flexibility on PUD applications
<br />Boulder County
<br />General fund used for land acquisition,
<br />Worthy Cause Fund
<br />No established policy on waivers of development
<br />requirements, may consider if project is located in
<br />a community service area
<br />rn
<br />0
<br />2
<br />w
<br />•
<br />0
<br />0.
<br />a
<br />w
<br />w
<br />ra
<br />E
<br />L
<br />w
<br />a
<br />0
<br />U
<br />0
<br />m
<br />■
<br />■
<br />■
<br />■
<br />25
<br />26 27
<br />
|